I don't get the hate for Scott's character. I dislike him as much as anyone else, but the character seemed believable to me. His motivation might've been simple, but I think it made sense. What's the deal with people not liking his character?
Did anyone else feel outrage at Scott's BS story covering the military battle in Afghanistan?
I remember on first viewing finding it to be just another example of his overall modus operandi. But on second viewing, I really got the sense that it was more than that.
For a guy interviewing a military vet reliving a frightening episode, all he could think about was how to embellish it to make it sell. As if nothing about the humanity of it or the horror the soldiers went through mattered.
This was really driven home for me watching the wounded vet react so excitedly when he was trying out his prosthetic hands. He wasn't outraged. He even said... We have stories like that, just not on that day.
I guess for me, if you can't pay proper homage to fellow Americans who go through ordeals like that so you don't have to, not only are you a piece of shit journalist, you are a piece of shit human. I guess if Templeton had been born on the Baltimore streets, he would have been Marlo Stanfield.
Maybe that's the point, there are versions of Marlo in every industry.
It feels like he gets away with the made up story but I get the sense there’s a foreshadowing of Scott Templeton being found out as a hack. It started with Gus, then Alma Gutierrez noticing his empty notepad and finally when he flakes on the managing editor Klebanow when he’s being given a headline story. Only thing with Klebanow this is the point he realises he’s implicated in the lie realising Templeton is a hack.
There’s also way too many pieces to the lie for it to not eventually come out with the amount of people who need to be kept happy for the lie to stick.
A lot. I hate him a lot.
I truly hated Ziggy on my first and second watches, but he has grown on me, while Scott, just becomes worse and worse.
Ziggy while being an idiot, still did it with honor his thing, while Scott had everything and just lies and cheated his way.
Might be a dumb question but in S5E9 “Late Editions,” Gus is talking to Robert Ruby (the newspaper guy back from England) and he asks if he knows “Scott Templeton, city GA.” I can’t Google what a GA is because all it’s giving me is a bunch of stuff about Georgia—anyone know what it stands for?
And no, I don't mean he's the most evil person. He is a poorly written character on a show that has very few ones given major screen time. No other character is so unambiguously villainous. Stringer is cold, but pragmatic. Avon's brutal and reckless, but he's got a code about the game that redeems him. Killers like Chris and Snoop are totally heartless, but Chris obviously had a fucked up childhood and Snoop is ultimately a charming sort of heartless. The evil of Levy, arguably, has to exist because without it, we'd end up with more innocent people in jail. Pieces of shit like Levy serve a role in society.
There is nothing redeeming Scott Templeton. He is entirely one dimensional. There is never any justification or thought given to why he lies. He lies because he is a bad man. His only purpose is to walk around with that dopey fucking look, make shit up solely to advance his career, and make everyone around him look like righteous geniuses in comparison.
....When ‘Spotlight’ won best picture at the 2015 Oscars. Can’t believe I’m the last to know about this: Tom McCarthy
It’s so freaking funny and ironic: an actor known for playing a character bereft of journalistic integrity goes on to direct an Oscar-winning movie about a landmark work of journalistic integrity and fidelity to the truth.
Surely many of you and his fans have commented on this already. But I had no idea he was a director. And for him to direct this movie of all movies and go on to win an Oscar for it is just serendipitous.
This movie is the recent gold standard of movies about journalism. And it chronicles some of the most diligent, honest, and patient reporters in recent history working on a landmark event in long-form investigative journalism. I just can’t imagine McCarthy on set talking to Ruffalo and Keaton and McCadams about the importance of truth and honestly and patience in news reporting.
Such a miserable bastard. I mean his expressions, openly reacting to his superiors' requests to do something... terrible.
I despise most of the press storyline but he is at the core of my hate.
More or less a subtle nod at the reporter’s unscrupulous nature and his general lack of ethics.
I've yet to understand what's going on? What's with the situation regarding the crab lady and the whole thing with Gus talking with the Major at the bar regarding to it? Can someone explain it?
And what did Gus mean by saying "getting took" regarding scott?
I've watched up until S05E07
How did he get away with this shit? First he straight up lies to the police about a kidnapping (a crime in itself), and for whatever reason they decide to let it slide. Then he makes shit up in his newspaper column, which gets printed despite the mountain of evidence that it's bullshit.
I mean even if the police decide to do nothing, couldn't Gus have taken his case to a competing newspaper? Surely they'd love to know that their competition is violating the first rule of journalism. Pretty sure Gus could have landed a better gig with another newspaper too.
I don't mean to rant but it seems like the whole Baltimore Sun subplot was a bit rushed
What is really distressful is that, if I ever meet someone that lies like him, I may never even know.
It seems like the wire is all about redeeming qualities in characters, and even the most heartless drug dealer is still likable. But with Templeton I see none of these. I just hate him! Do you think there is a reason he is made like this or perhaps I am missing something?
Brian Williams has been fabricating stories before Season 5 of The Wire even aired.
(Planning on posting this to /r/baseball in the morning and figured I'd at least put it out there for smarter people (than me) to see before then... I'm not a statistician or a data scientist, just a hobbyist trying to learn stuff as he goes so any feedback is appreciated.)
###No, I'm not kidding...
I'm a complete sports statistics junkie, so when it was posted a few months ago, this post caught my eye:
>Jose Altuve is batting .278. He batted .278 before the All Star game and .278 after the All Star game. He batted .278 against right handed pitchers and .278 vs left handed pitchers."
That alone would have been enough for me to want to investigate, and then I read the top comment, which linked to this post, and my mind may as well have exploded at the thought of how astronomically unlikely this confluence of events must have been.
I had a few questions in particular that sprung to mind:
- How many times in the history of MLB has a player logged the same BA before and after the ASG?
- How many times in the history of MLB has a player logged the same BA vs. LHP and RHP for a full season?
- How many times have both of these things happened to the same player in the same season?
- What is the probability of each of the above events happening separately and together based on historical data?
These questions nagged at the back of my mind for a while and I actually tried to find a good way to scrape the large amounts of data for splits going back a ways but couldn't find a good way to do it... until last week, that is, when I finally caved and bought myself an annual subscription to StatHead. At long last, I had the means to answer all the questions no one was asking. So, here goes...
###Methodology and Results
First, to make sure my data was relatively uniform, I set three parameters for the data I would collect:
- My data doesn't include any seasons prior to 1933, the year of the first All-Star Game.
- I only include data for seasons in which a player had 502 or more plate appearances, which is the cutoff to be eligible for a batting title (under normal circumstances).
- All my StatHead queries excluded incomplete data, which they explain thusly: "Play-by-play is mostly complete to 1954 and entirely complete to 1974. Pitch-by-pitch, count data, and hit locati
It’s easy to hate Scott, I mean we all do. But my real criticism is on the writers, not the character. For such a prominently involved character, they should have given us more, something a bit more palpable to bite onto (no pun intended.)
I understand his motivation throughout the season, it’s ego and career based, a very human motivation. I understand that he may be flat by design, a purposeful plot device. And caveat, a flat character in a David Simon universe is vastly more interesting than flat characters in most other universes.
But my contention is- that he shouldn’t have been flat, or at the very least they should have given us more meat. Some kind of redeeming quality, or an inkling of a redeeming quality, or some more idiosyncrasies would have done his character a world of wonder I think. Thoughts?
I don't want to step on anybody's toes here, but the amount of non-dad jokes here in this subreddit really annoys me. First of all, dad jokes CAN be NSFW, it clearly says so in the sub rules. Secondly, it doesn't automatically make it a dad joke if it's from a conversation between you and your child. Most importantly, the jokes that your CHILDREN tell YOU are not dad jokes. The point of a dad joke is that it's so cheesy only a dad who's trying to be funny would make such a joke. That's it. They are stupid plays on words, lame puns and so on. There has to be a clever pun or wordplay for it to be considered a dad joke.
Again, to all the fellow dads, I apologise if I'm sounding too harsh. But I just needed to get it off my chest.
- If you find your book in the thread below, send the number of the book via reddit chat or via telegram .
- Almost all the books are in their latest editions and some of them are available in multiple editions too
- Books (pdf) are delivered through Google-Drive link
- You can also send requests via reddit chat or by telegram .
- Also, upvote the post if you found it useful
Please find the list below:
12490.Hip Hop Reader, The (A Longman Topics Reader) 1st edition Tim Strode, Tim Wood
12491.Wu Zhao: China's Only Female Emperor 1st edition N Harry Rothschild
12492.College Culture, Student Success (A Longman Topics Reader) 1st edition Debra J. Anderson
12493.Chican@s in the Conversations (A Longman Topics Reader) 1st edition Elizabeth R. Kessler, Anne Perrin
12494.Education Matters (A Longman Topics Reader) 1st edition Morgan Gresham, Crystal McCage
12495.Legends, Lore, and Lies: A Skeptic's Stance (A Longman Topics Reader) 1st edition Joseph Calabrese
12496.Case Studies in Special Education Law: No Child Left Behind Act and Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act 1st edition Mary Konya Weishaar
12497.Body and Culture (A Longman Topics Reader) 1st edition Greg Lyons
12498.Ethics in the 21st Century (A Longman Topics Reader) 1st edition Mary Alice Trent
12499.Longman Anthology of Detective Fiction, The 1st edition Deane Mansfield-Kelley, Lois Marchino
12500.Language and Prejudice (A Longman Topics Reader) 1st edition Tamara M. Valentine
12501.Guide to Interpersonal Communication (Guide to Business Communication Series) 1st edition Joann Baney
12502.Considering Cultural Difference (A Longman Topics Reader) 1st edition Pauline Uchmanowicz
12503.Transcreation of the Bhagavad Gita 1st edition Ashok Kumar Malhotra
12504.Varieties of Unbelief: From Epicurus to Sartre 1st edition J C. A. Gaskin
12505.Harry S. Truman and the Modern American Presidency (Library of American Biography Series) 1st edition Robert H. Ferrell
12506.John Marshall: Defender of the Constitution 1st edition
12507.Way of Lao Tzu, The 1st edition Wingtsit Chan
12508.Nicomachean Ethics: Aristotle 1st edition Martin Ostwald
12509.Organization 21C: Someday All Organizations Will Lead This Way 1st edition Subir Chowdhury
12510.My iPad 11th edition Gary Rosenzweig
12511.My iPad for Seniors 7th edition Michael Miller
12512.My iPad for Seniors
... keep reading on reddit ➡The nurse asked the rabbit, “what is your blood type?”
“I am probably a type O” said the rabbit.
Mentos
(I will see myself out)
The doctor says it terminal.
Alot of great jokes get posted here! However just because you have a joke, doesn't mean it's a dad joke.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT NSFW, THIS IS ABOUT LONG JOKES, BLONDE JOKES, SEXUAL JOKES, KNOCK KNOCK JOKES, POLITICAL JOKES, ETC BEING POSTED IN A DAD JOKE SUB
Try telling these sexual jokes that get posted here, to your kid and see how your spouse likes it.. if that goes well, Try telling one of your friends kid about your sex life being like Coca cola, first it was normal, than light and now zero , and see if the parents are OK with you telling their kid the "dad joke"
I'm not even referencing the NSFW, I'm saying Dad jokes are corny, and sometimes painful, not sexual
So check out r/jokes for all types of jokes
r/unclejokes for dirty jokes
r/3amjokes for real weird and alot of OC
r/cleandadjokes If your really sick of seeing not dad jokes in r/dadjokes
Punchline !
Edit: this is not a post about NSFW , This is about jokes, knock knock jokes, blonde jokes, political jokes etc being posted in a dad joke sub
Edit 2: don't touch the thermostat
Do your worst!
How the hell am I suppose to know when it’s raining in Sweden?
We told her she can lean on us for support. Although, we are going to have to change her driver's license, her height is going down by a foot. I don't want to go too far out on a limb here but it better not be a hack job.
Ants don’t even have the concept fathers, let alone a good dad joke. Keep r/ants out of my r/dadjokes.
But no, seriously. I understand rule 7 is great to have intelligent discussion, but sometimes it feels like 1 in 10 posts here is someone getting upset about the jokes on this sub. Let the mods deal with it, they regulate the sub.
They were cooked in Greece.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_McCarthy_(director)
For me, it’s a toss-up between Scott Templeton and Herc, both complete pieces of shit
